From: David MOREY (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Mon Jan 26 2004 - 18:26:17 GMT
Hi
You quote:"It's ironic that although the philosophy of science leaves no
room for
any undefined Dynamic activity, it's science's unique organization for
the handling of the Dynamic that gives it its superiority. Science
superseded old religious forms, not because what it says is more true in
any absolute sense (whatever that is), but because what it says is more
Dynamic.
DM ponders: well, we so have to rethink how we approach truth and
knowledge in a more open-process orientated outlook. Popper was moving
along these lines in his later work, and Roy Bhaskar has developed them
a great deal. So current philosophy of science is improving.
Closed systems are very special cases of causality and reflect
very little of what goes on in the dynamic world. The success of science
under its
'objective' thematic is clearly closely aligned to the focus on closed
systems and
quantitative factors. But even quantities are a matter of the
subjective/creative determination
of measuring systems so that we can compare 1m travelled to 100m travelled
or measured.
It is just easier for people to agree quantities than qualities when talking
about knowledge.
Your green might be my blue for example. Hard to think that objectivity
means litttle more
than intersubjective agereement. However, I accept realism on another basis.
No the removal
of the subjective standpoint (a very unrealistic possibility, from nowhere
there can be no view).
The basis I accept realism is on that of causality and our capacity to
investigate underlying levels
of causality, e.g. that the colour green as we experience it is dependent on
the wavelength of light.
And also that the world does not cease to carry on with its activity when I
close my eyes.
The idea that we can have useful knowledge depends on realism, any other
idea is a bit stupid really,
despite the pragmatist fear of committing to realism.
regards
David M
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Turner" <paulj.turner@ntlworld.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:01 PM
Subject: RE: MD Objectivity, Truth and the MOQ
> Bo
>
> Paul previously said:
> > I think Bo is talking about the epistemological distinction of
> > subjective versus objective where "objective" is seen as a synonym for
> > "true."
>
> Bo said:
> Right, this is how the SOM is described in ZMM. But for the umpteenth
> time ...when seen as intellect's value it is not S/O Metaphysics, merely
> the VALUE of the said distinction.
>
> Paul:
> The S/O distinction is *an* intellectual pattern of value, not *the*
> value of intellect.
>
> Bo said:
> Will it never penetrate that the S/O does not mean that intellectual
> patterns "contains" subjects and objects", merely that they are of the
> "search for what is objectively true" ...etc." ROOT.
>
> Paul:
> If you cut out the "objectively" then I would agree that intellectual
> patterns can be said to "search for what is true." As I have said
> repeatedly, "true" and "objective" are not equivalent terms.
> Intellectual patterns can only be better or worse than others. A
> stumbling block for you in accepting this may be your insistence that
> patterns in one level are of identical value. I found a quote on this
> subject in Lila's Child:
>
> Jason asks the question, "What distinguishes a high quality intellectual
> idea from a lower quality one?" [p.10] Pirsig, in his annotations,
> replies, "Its truth, mainly. Also the magnitude of the questions it
> answers or problems it solves. Other things being equal, its rhetorical
> "elegance" is also important in the mathematical sense of that term."
> [p.32]
>
> The ancient Greeks might have been the first to consciously strive for
> truth and in doing so placed it higher than the good but the notion of
> "objective truth" has been dying for years, science would not have
> survived if it couldn't reject old truths for better ones, as Pirsig
> notes in Lila:
>
> "It's ironic that although the philosophy of science leaves no room for
> any undefined Dynamic activity, it's science's unique organization for
> the handling of the Dynamic that gives it its superiority. Science
> superseded old religious forms, not because what it says is more true in
> any absolute sense (whatever that is), but because what it says is more
> Dynamic.
>
> If scientists had simply said Copernicus was right and Ptolemy was wrong
> without any willingness to further investigate the subject, then science
> would have simply become another minor religious creed. But scientific
> truth has always contained an overwhelming difference from theological
> truth: it is provisional. Science always contains an eraser, a mechanism
> whereby new Dynamic insight could wipe out old static patterns without
> destroying science itself. Thus science, unlike orthodox theology, has
> been capable of continuous, evolutionary growth. As Phaedrus had written
> on one of his slips, "The pencil is mightier than the pen."" [Lila
> p.254-255]
>
> Regards
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jan 26 2004 - 19:07:43 GMT